When a high-level judge tells you to do something, you should probably do it. That is the kind of common sense that most people would follow — but not Apple. Because of the company’s failure to follow a UK judge’s order in a Samsung patent case, Apple must now pay all of Samsung’s legal fees.

The lawsuit, which probably would not have become such a media spectacle if Apple simply followed the court’s orders, was one of a few cases in which Apple’s patent claims against the Samsung Galaxy Tab were dismissed. It was a rare victory for Samsung. The judge thought the case was so conclusive that he demanded Apple post an apology on its website, informing customers that it was wrong. Instead, the company posted a few sentences about other legal victories it had against Samsung, which was kind of the opposite of the court order. This enraged the judge, who in turn ordered Apple to not only post an apology but also an apology about its botched apology.

The debacle isn’t over yet, though. Now, UK Court of Appeal Judge Robin Jacob has decided that because of Apple’s actions, it must pay all of Samsung’s legal fees.

While the winning party of a case is usually entitled to reclaim at least some of the costs they incurred, it is not always 100%. In the UK, there are two possible rulings for court costs called “standard” and “indemnity.” A standard ruling requires the examination of many factors to determine how much money one side can recoup. With an indemnity ruling, that requirement does not need to be followed.

And so the judge has ordered Apple to pay Samsung’s legal fees on an indemnity basis. From a legal perspective, the argument to be made is that if Apple had complied with all the judge’s orders, there would have already been a quantifiable remedy for Samsung. Because Apple muddied the waters, though, such a justification no longer exists.

Jacob’s full ruling was a scathing attack on Apple, saying the company outright disobeyed orders. In one particularly harsh line, he said Apple demonstrated an entire “lack of integrity” and that he hoped the rest of the company was not the same way.